Document checked:

Is the last style sheet used the W3C one?

no : No linked style sheet found

Is the W3C style sheet used the correct one (wrt the status)?

yes no . The W3C style sheet shoud be http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C- (whereas it is currently )

Is there a <div class="head"> section?:

yes no, many other structural tests depends on the presence of this and won't be done due to its absence.

Is the W3C Logo correct?

yes no: The errors are:

no, logo not found in <div class='head'>

Is there the appropriate Submission logo?

yes no, check the markup used with the one required yes no, check the markup used with the one required Something is wrong, the type of submissions could not be determined (Team or Member?)

Are the title in <title> and <h1> the same?

yes no :

different from

Is the dated status subtitle correct?

yes ( ) no: no h2 heading beginning with 'W3C ' found in the head div or failed to parse it

Is there a link to the errata and the translations after the authors and before the copyright?

yes link to translations not found link to the errata not found

Are there errors in the copyright:

Note that "software licensing" must not be mentioned anymore in the copyright (See Pubrules section 7.10)

• no : <p class="copyright"> not found in <div class="head">
• No other errors found

Is there a <hr/> after the copyright?

yes No

Is there a link to the W3C document notice?

yes No

Versions links

"Latest version" link not found

"This version" link not found .

The previous version doesn't seem to match with the current latest version (ETags differs).

The shortnames are different in the previous version URI and in the latest version URI.check that the new shortname got director's approval

"Previous version" link not found

OK, returns 404. Check that the doc got Director's approval

Something seems wrong, exists.

Is there an Editor or Author section in the head of the document?

yes ()no (no <dt> elements begining by 'Author' or 'Editor' found)

If there is an abstract, is it marked up by <h2> and is it at the right location (just after the hr)?

yes no, not at the right location No, check that if there is an abstract, its title is in a h2 tag.

Is there a status of the document and is it correctly marked up?

yes no : SOTD not found (note that some tests relying on the SOTD won't be done because of this)

Is it at the right place in the document (i.e. after the head and the abstract if there is one)?

yes no

Does the status section contain the standard boilerplate?

yes no (the SOTD must contain the following boilerplate: By publishing this document, W3C acknowledges that [Submitting Members] have made a formal submission to W3C for discussion. Publication of this document by W3C indicates no endorsement of its content by W3C, nor that W3C has, is, or will be allocating any resources to the issues addressed by it. This document is not the product of a chartered W3C group, but is published as potential input to the <a href="/Consortium/Process">W3C Process</a>. Publication of acknowledged Member Submissions at the W3C site is one of the benefits of <a href="/Consortium/Prospectus/Joining">W3C Membership</a>. Please consult the requirements associated with Member Submissions of <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-submissions">section 3.3 of the W3C Patent Policy</a>. Please consult the complete <a href="/Submission">list of acknowledged W3C Member Submissions</a>.

Does the status section contain the standard boilerplate?

yes no (the SOTD must contain the following boilerplate: Publication as a does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. no (the SOTD must contain the following markup: <p><em>This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">W3C technical reports index</a> at http://www.w3.org/TR/.</em></p>

Does the status section contain a link to the TR page (or the appropriate Submissions page)?

yesno (not found)

Does the status section contain a link to an interoperability or implementation report?

candidate(s) found: no candidate found (looking for links containing the word 'implementation' or 'interoperability', ignore if you're using other terms)

Does the status section contain a link to an archived mailing list for feedback?

yes ( , but the email address looks bogus) no link found to archivesno (no mailto: link found)

Is there a link to the Activity home page or the Activity statement in the status of the document?

yes () no, no link to an Activity information page found.

Is there a link to the Working Group home page in the status of the document?

yes () no, no link to a Working Group page found.

Is there an indication that this is a First Public Working Draft?

yes no, The expression "First Public Working Draft" was not found in the status section.

Does the status section include call for exclusions?

yes No candidate found (see related Pubrules section 1.3.1 point 2) (Note that the checker is searching for the following uri: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion)

Is there an email feedback link for the AC Reps to a team only mailing for PR Review?

2 email addresses found in the status section. Check that one of is a team only mailing list no, only one email address has been found in the status section. There must be at least two of them.

Is there a date for the end of the PER review?

yes () no, no date found in the format DD Month YYYY in the SOTD

Is there a deadline for feedback in the SOTD?

yes () no, no date found in the format DD Month YYYY in the SOTD (Note that the checker believes this is a Last Call WD (because "last call" appears somewhere in the SOTD; if it is mistaken, ignore this message)

Is there information about under which patent policy the document was produced?

yes (This doc was produced under the CPP) yes (This doc was produced under the 5 February 2004 W3C patent Policy) No candidate found, (Note that the checker is searching for either the expressions "W3C Patent Policy" & "5 February 2004" or a link to the Patent Policy Transition Procedure for the document under the CPP: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-pp-transition; this doesn't apply if the document is produced by a PP Group and not expected to become a Recommendation

Is the patent policy information consistent with information in IPP?

Document produced by more than 1 group, check manually yes (the group is in IPP, and lists this spec as a Patent Policy spec) probably OK (group in IPP, and this spec is a FPWD) something seems wrong (the group is not in IPP, or is in IPP but doesn't list this spec as PP) looks OK (group in IPP, lists the spec as CPP) something seems wrong (the group is in IPP, and doesn't refer to this spec as CPP) Can't tell, probably OK but check manually Something is wrong, IPP knows about this spec, but this spec doesn't refer to any patent policy Can't tell, check manually

Does the status section contain a link to patents disclosures?

yes http://www.w3.org private () , but this page has a restricted access No candidate found (this doesn't apply if the document is produced in a PP group and not expected to become a Recommendation) (Suggestion: use a link with rel="disclosure"; this is not mandatory, just recommended for pubrules checking ease)

List of heading without id:

• heading without id found:
• No other heading without ids found

Is the document HTML valid?

Is the document CSS valid?

Is there no relative link using "../"?

no; it will be broken at publication timeyes

Points which still need human check, but where I can help

Do all the images have a meaningful alternative text?

• img: -> alt: [this alt attribute is empty; this is only valid if the image doesn't bear any meaning]

Points which still need to be checked by some other way

• Are there broken link?
• Has the document publication been approved by the Director (needed even for minor revision of any submissions)?
• Is the Status of the Document section correct?
  • The status section must contain a customized paragraph that has not been copied from another document. This section should include the title page date of the document and the publication date.
  • the status section must explain why W3C has published them (result of ack'd Member Submission; decision to publish Team Submission), that these are not W3C Recommendation track documents, and that publication does not imply endorsement by W3C, and that publication does not imply that any further action will be taken by W3C.
  • is there a link to changes since the previous transition (e.g., a list of changes or a diff document or both)?
  • is there a link to a list of changes that may affect conformance?
  • is there a link to the rationale for rescinding?
• Are all the visible URIs in the whole document valid?
• if there has been a previous recommendation, check the rules for versioning

For a compound document, these tests need to be done on the dependent pages:

List of dependent pages:

Tests that subpart must pass:

• Does their images have appropriate alternative textes?
• Is the W3C style sheet the last called and the good one?
• Are they HTML and CSS valid?
• Are they using valid www.w3.org URIs?